Slashdot Mirror

> but an LCD doesn't go to black between refreshes so it doesn't suffer from flicker at any signal rate

That's not entirely true and misleading. I have an Asus VG248QE that supports nVidia LightBoost (even in 2D!) that inserts black frames between refreshes. Here is a video of the Asus VG278H that also supports LightBoost.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD5gjAs1A2s

Also see:
http://www.blurbusters.com/zero-motion-blur/lightboost/

> We perceive fluid motion as around 25-30 FPS so 60 FPS is perfect smoothness for movies and television.

You do realize that fighter pilots can detect motion up to 200+ FPS right? Yes, 200.
http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html

I would _literally_ like to see hard evidence of movies shot at 60 Hz, 72 Hz, 96 Hz, 100 Hz, 120 Hz, and 144 Hz played back on
  a) CRT, and
  b) LCD with LightBoost
to determine what the minimum refresh rate needs to be. I know from personal experience that on a CRT my eyes MUCH prefer 100 Hz to 60 Hz.

> Having 120 Hz cables and monitors is really the brute force version of this, instead of motion blurring you just throw up razor-sharp images on the screen and let the brain do the motion blurring instead of the computer.

Agreed that is a "better" solution then blurring the hell out of everything at a low refresh rate.

> The only thing it improves is latency,
Yes. The other benefit with a high refresh rate is for gaming you can turn V-Sync OFF. As a gamer / drummer latency drives me nuts because V-Sync "on" lags input likes crazy. We're talking about 1 or 2 milliseconds here and it is annoying as heck.

"Hum,,,after 30 fps, you dont see any difference or choppy movement as long as it's constant, for sure more is better if it's going to vary depending on the game you play or how many millions of triangle it's calculating, the human eye doesnt see any difference at 60 fps, nor at 100 fps."

Not quite true. Do some research before quoting the same myth that everyone quotes.
Check out this link for more.

That's not how it works. You can clearly see the difference between 24 and 60 fps.

"So what are they licensing? Pixie dust?"

Everyone knows pixie dust was patented by Hewlett Packard.

http://amo.net/NT/07-21-01HP.html

This appears to be 1/10th the marketing budget on windows XP: http://amo.net/NT/06-27-01WinXP.html $1 Billion but actually it looks like Microsoft itself only put up $200 Million... so thats puts windows vista at half the marketing budget of XP...

That is actually incorrect.

The human brain can distingush patterns at 72HZ (FPS). The human eye can actually see over 200 distinct FPS.

Look for yourself.

Saying that people can perceive more than 30 fps is like saying that people can hear beyond 20 kHz. Sure, you have the occasional freak who MIGHT be able to perceive it, but for the most part it's just people who *think* they can perceive it.

This is a common misconception. Seeing the difference between 30 and 60fps is like hearing the difference between 11KHz and 22KHz digital audio. It's actually something that most people can do.

This article (which discusses the subject in detail) cites an Air Force study that implies that humans can perceive visual changes that last less than 1/200th of a second. I personally don't notice a difference above 60-80fps, but 30 is really pretty low. Just about any gamer should be able to spot that.

Also, as an aside - most young people *can* hear above 20KHz. I could hear well above it when I was in elementary school. It's just age and exposure to loud sounds that degrade it over time.

As I recall, visual research indicates that humans can successfully discern fluid motion from frame based motion up until about 400fps. Of course, no one has a monitor that goes up that high, but still, the point stands.

I did try to find a cite, the closest I could find was this page which notes that framerates of 220fps have been proven distinguishable.

To clarify for you:

PS2 worldwide figures: Asahi Shimbun (also contains Nintendo figures)
Xbox worldwide figures: MSFT 4th Quarter Earnings Report
Gamecube worldwide figures: Forbes from Reuters (at the bottom of the page). There are a few other pages quoting this figure as well.

PS2 US figures: NPDFunWorld
Xbox US figures: Unknown. Possibly the same as above?
Gamecube US figures: Guessed from estimate listed on AMO.NET Please note that this article does seem to be biased towards the Xbox, with multiple opinions to that effect. Nevertheless there is one good quote:

The real truth about these sales figures and future sales opportunities is that no single gaming system fan can be trusted with anything he or she has read regarding one system selling better, or performing better than the other.

My reasoning comes from the simple fact that the human eye is unable to perceive extra frames beyond a certain number (I've heard this number to be around 25 or 30).

Spend the money for a literacy program in the first place

Thanks, mate. It's enlightened, literate Westerners like you who need to come to India and teach us how to read, write, eat, cook, have sex and oh, log in to the net to watch (American) p0rno.

I don't care if I'm marked down as a troll, but I'm fed up with this paternalistic attitude that most posts here seem to have. You think there are no literate Indians out there? Or you think there's so little money that we can't provide for both Simputers and mass adult literacy? Does the US government stop all research until all the 33 million "food-insecure" Americans get a proper nutritious meal every day? Why do I not see any posts comparing that with Windows XP's billion dollar marketing budget?

Oh wait. This is about bloddy Indians, isn't it.

So good of you to post your references. Here are mine:

• Human Eye Frames Per Second
• Google for more